ReviewCancers2025
Machine Learning Methods in Clinical Flow Cytometry.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- Review
- Revolutionizing Stem Cell Sorting with Machine Learning: A Review of Trends, Tools, and Future Directions.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-based prognostic models in acute myeloid leukemia: systematic review and meta-analysis.Blood neoplasia · 2026Article
- Molecular Pathology, Artificial Intelligence, and New Technologies in Hematologic Diagnostics: Translational Opportunities and Practical Considerations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Machine learning for extracellular vesicles enables diagnostic and therapeutic nanobiotechnology.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Plying potency assays for immunotherapy of solid tumors.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Advancements in artificial intelligence for cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction: current applications and emerging opportunities.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- An Update on Flow Cytometry Analysis of Hematological Malignancies: Focus on Standardization.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review will explore the integration of machine learning (ML) techniques to enhance the analysis of increasingly complex and voluminous flow cytometry data, as traditional manual methods are insufficient for handling this data. We attempt to provide a comprehensive introduction to ML in flow cytometry, detailing the transition from manual gating to computational methods and emphasizing the importance of data quality. Key ML techniques are discussed, including supervised learning methods like logistic regression, support vector machines, and neural networks, which rely on labeled data to classify disease states. Unsupervised methods, such as k-means clustering, FlowSOM, UMAP, and t-SNE, are highlighted for their ability to identify novel cell populations without predefined labels. We also delve into newer semi-supervised and weakly supervised methods, which leverage partial labeling to improve model performance. Practical aspects of implementing ML in clinical settings are addressed, including regulatory considerations, data preprocessing, model training, validation, and the importance of generalizability, and we underscore the collaborative effort required among pathologists, data scientists, and laboratory professionals to ensure robust model development and deployment. Finally, we show the transformative potential of ML in flow cytometry in uncovering new biological insights through advanced computational techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.